Broadside Against Supreme Court Term Limits Misses The Mark - Above the Law

Support for Supreme Court term limits has increased sharply, reaching over 70 percent, while approval for expanding or packing the Court remains below 50 percent. A bill introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson proposes a functional 18-year term limit for justices. Earlier versions of similar proposals stalled after objections that justices serve for life under the Constitution. This year, criticism is shifting from dismissing the idea as unconstitutional toward offering new reasons to block it. The National Law Journal published an argument by Emory law professor Michael J. Broyde claiming term limits will not fix the Supreme Court or the confirmation process. The claim is presented as significant because it accepts term limits are possible, even though the piece argues the reasoning is flawed.

"You can tell when a reform starts to gathering real momentum when new, bad critiques start rolling out. Specifically when the forces arrayed against a proposal stop laughing about how impossible it is and start grasping for new reasons to block the runaway train of progress. For Supreme Court term limits, that shift is happening right now."

"Last week, Rep. Hank Johnson introduced legislation to impose a functional 18-year term limit on Supreme Court justices. Versions of this bill have come up before, and after a hearty round of "but the Constitution says justices serve for life!" the proposal quietly dies on the congressional vine. This year, something seems to have changed."

"A majority of the public have supported term limit proposals for the justices for a few years now, but recently that support skyrocketed to over 70 percent. While expanding and packing the Supreme Court remains mired below 50 percent approval, term limits cuts across party lines. This GOP Congress won't take action on Johnson's bill, but if this trend holds, it's only a matter of time."

"The National Law Journal published a piece from Emory law professor Michael J. Broyde, arguing that "Term Limits Won't Fix the Supreme Court or the Confirmation Process." Right or wrong, it's a significant development to see lengthy broadsides that seem to accept the premise that term limits are possible. That said, he's also wrong."

Read at Above the Law